I'm sorry but you seem to have entirely missed the point. Perhaps you could probe your point by trying to move the upper left hand menus in Gnome Classic to the bottom panel. I would be very curious to know if you are successful or not.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Contributors: GNOME equal to KDE
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by kigurai View PostHow is that? Considering that Gnome-Shell extensions can basically change *anything* in the Shell, I fail to see how Gnome 2 was more customizable.
Comment
-
the problem is that it's essentially designed by hobbyist amateurs, who are not professional UI designers like the ones in Gnome or KDE projects.
But really there's no need to try to infer the UI quality from the number of professional UI devs working on it. It's both easier and more accurate to just try them and judge for yourself which is best. To me that's Cinnamon*. And naturally I also like the Windows Vista UI which Cinnamon resembles closely. KDE might be able to match Cinnamon if you changed the theme, replaced the start menu, and disabled the cashew, activities, 90% of the widgets/applets--basically every feature they've been working on since KDE3. But that's way too much customization to have to do, and KDE themes I like are hard to find.
*Only in Ubuntu-based Linux Mint though, with the theme changed to Clearlooks, and hot corners disabled. In LMDE I can't change the GTK+ theme, so it's fugly!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Honton View PostBeing flexible is also a matter of maturing. Gnome 3 is maturing and getting more flexible. Mature and flexible enough for RHEL. Now it is disclosed. http://worldofgnome.org/rhel-7-is-sh...-classic-mode/
Be happy at least one free desktop is good enough make it.
I guess one way to take the decision to ship with the Classic Mode by default is it is an admission that the standard GNOME shell is not up to the job.
I think you will find there are plenty of desktops good enough to make it, especially if Red Hat sets the bar so low
Comment
-
Originally posted by danielnez1 View PostI guess one way to take the decision to ship with the Classic Mode by default is it is an admission that the standard GNOME shell is not up to the job.
Classic Mode still contains standard Gnome shell.
Comment
-
Originally posted by finalzone View PostEnterprise environment =/= consumer environment.
Classic Mode still contains standard Gnome shell.
Originally posted by Honton View PostCoding is easy(and fun), maintaining and supporting is not easy(but costly). Saying no to having a too large and complex codebase is like knowing your limits. Adding flexibility usually means adding complexity and code. It can not be done over night.
Gnome is both Modern and classic. Gnome gives you the choice to pick a shell and the flexibility to modify it by the use of extensions.
Bad jokes aside, Im looking forward to other desktops joining the club of be supported by billion $ companies. Lets revisit this by 2020.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Honton View PostExtensions ARE a part of Gnome. Thus making Gnome 3 more flexible than Gnome 2 ever was. Be happy.
Comment
-
Originally posted by danielnez1 View PostWhile they are two distinct markets, in the case of the Windows 95 UI there was quite a short transition from the Win 3.x UI of NT 3.5 to NT 4 with a short intermediate step with Windows NT 3.51. While the 95 UI had some shortcomings it was a significant move forward in UI design for the Windows platform that it was quickly accepted by both enterprise and consumer sectors.
Today, consumers are exposed to several different UI flavours than before, you cannot compare to what happened two decades ago.
If GNOME 3 was less jarring then I strongly believe that the Classic Mode would not have been needed or be offered as default for RHEL 7.
RHEL7 is doing the same thing while still gradually incorporating the new Gnome 3 features.
Comment
-
Originally posted by finalzone View PostAt that time, there were very few alternative UI excluding OS/2 (Mac OS does not count because Apple ran on different architectures).
Today, consumers are exposed to several different UI flavours than before, you cannot compare to what happened two decades ago.
Gnome Shell isnt that jarring, it sounds like you are very conservative in UI appearance much like enterprise audiences (Microsoft Windows NT series for enterprise still retains the old Win2000 UI interface at the request).
RHEL7 is doing the same thing while still gradually incorporating the new Gnome 3 features.
I wouldn't consider my self a traditionalist, by all means the GNOME developers have every right to try out new things but their execution has been extremely poor with their "all or nothing" approach.
Comment
Comment